Gallegos v. Freeman, 172 Wash. App. 616

Gallegos violated a no-contact order and threatened to obtain firearms; he entered his wife's residence with a knife in a dark, unlit rural field setting.
Officers including Deputy Freeman responded; Freeman, with a canine and unlit flashlight, approached the field with others following; the area was dark and wide open.
Gallegos drove a red Beretta toward the officers after ignoring commands to stop; Freeman fired three shots, injuring Gallegos as the vehicle advanced.
Gallegos sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claim and state-law claims for negligence and battery.
The trial court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity, but later granted Freeman’s summary-judgment motion; on appeal the court reviews Freeman's qualified-immunity defense de novo.
The court held Freeman was entitled to qualified immunity both for the federal claim (no clearly established right given the circumstances) and for state-law immunity, after evaluating the reasonableness of Freeman’s use of deadly force under the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the right clearly established for qualified immunity?	Gallegos argues a clearly established right against deadly force applies.	Freeman argues no controlling precedent clearly establishing illegality under these facts.	No clearly established right; qualified immunity applies.
Was Freeman's use of deadly force objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?	Gallegos contends the force was excessive given speeds and circumstances.	Freeman reasonably believed the vehicle threatened himself and others.	Yes, reasonable under the circumstances.
Were the state-law qualified-immunity protections appropriately applied?	Gallegos asserts no reasonable basis for state immunity.	Officers acted reasonably; state immunity applies.	Yes, Freeman entitled to state-law qualified immunity.
Did the evidence create a triable issue on the speed/direction of the vehicle?	Gallegos argues the car speed was modest and not on a collision course.	Two witnesses believed high speed; considering light, path, and perception, the threat was real.	Even with disputed speeds, the perceived threat was reasonable.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1985) (deadly force permissible to prevent escape when threat of serious harm exists)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court, 2001) (two-prong qualified-immunity analysis; clearly established right must be particularized)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court, 2004) (duty to resolve immunity at earliest stage; border between excessive and acceptable force depends on facts)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Supreme Court, 2007) (summary-judgment standard; avoid relying on disputed versions of events when videotape exists)